This is my answer to a question for the SMU Law Admission Test.It was done in around 15 minutes and am proud to have finished the essay with only that short period of time. I didn't anything even though there are a few grammar mistakes and typos (OMG!! Shit! hopefully they can still understand my points) inside since I did it in such a rush. I am presenting it in its entirety.
*Disclaimer's Notice* : I have no idea whether or not I can post this thing online, as it is a document that was sent to me, and there was no privacy policy that was attached with the document. If by any way I am violating some rules of privacy by SMU,I apologize and I did not do so intentionally and will immediately take down this post.
The question was : “In the struggle between the will of the majority and the right of the individual, the law necessarily leans in favour of the former.” Comment.
I believe that the statement “in the struggle between the will of the majority and the right of the individual, the law necessarily leans in favour of the former” is not completely true. This due to the fact that the law is first created within the society in order to create order and to manage the society itself as a social entity.
Here we must distinguish between the will of the majority with the greater good. Many people would have agreed upon that statement using the logic derived from utilitarianistic principle whereby we always try to take the course of actions that will result in the maximum amount of happiness, or in other words the actions that will promote the greater good rather than the good of the Individuals. Here its is different, as the greater good would mean that it is something that has been established to be good for everyone in the society. For example the policy of underage drinking and putting 18 years old as the lowest age in which someone could actually purchase an alcoholic drink. In a fictional country whereby a lot of the people there are alcoholics and the culture itself tends towards alcoholism whereby the parents does allow their children to take alcohol, the will of the majority might be to make alcohol available to everyone of any age. However as the government of the country they should realize that this will although is the will f the majority and is derived from the tradition of its people is not advantageous for the society as a whole and may even cause a regress in societal development. Therefore here the law must step in restrict the amount of alcohol consumed for the greater good of the society. Hence here we can see a case whereby laws does not always tend towards the will of the majority but rather towards the greater good of the society which is two completely different things.
Individual rights is also important inside a society and therefore will not and should not be neglected by the law. In a society there are constant interactions between individuals and their rights and occasions whereby the rights of the people intersects. The law is built upon creating this balance of individual rights as well as common rights. Without the presence of individual rights the society could work and develop as the people will be extremely tied down and are not respected as individuals. This in turn might cause unhappiness between the people and may cause an uprising within the society, an example is the fall of the USSR. Therefore we can see how even though law works towards promoting the greater good, individual rights must still be respected and preserved, as it is ultimately individuals who built and ensure the sustainability of our society. It is only when an individual is using his or her individual rights to do harm to the society can the law step in to protect the society as a whole, as according to the greater good principle the well being of the society as a whole is more important that the well being of an individual.
In conclusion, the law does not tend towards favoring the will of the majority, but rather the greater good of the society which must be distinguished. Individual rights are also important within a society as individuals are ultimately the back bone of the society and protecting their rights will ensure the presence of a social stability and promote the greater good for the society. Hence, the law is not favouring both individual rights of the will of the majority but rather the greater good for the society itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment